Trinity College Trinity College

Trinity College Digital Repository Trinity College Digital Repository

Senior Theses and Projects Student Scholarship

Spring 2020

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the Trump Era: A Human Rights The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the Trump Era: A Human Rights

Perspective Perspective

Manny Rodriguez manuel.rodriguez@trincoll.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses

Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the United States History Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Rodriguez, Manny, "The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the Trump Era: A Human Rights Perspective". Senior Theses, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 2020. Trinity College Digital Repository, https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/847

1

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the Trump Era: A Human Rights

Perspective

Manny Rodriguez Human Rights Studies Senior Project

Trinity College -- Hartford, CT May 2020

2

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….5

● Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………8

Chapter 1: A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ………………………………………13

● Israeli-Palestinian Conflict under Obama ……………………………………………..19

Chapter 2: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict under Trump…………………………………………..24

Conclusion: Implications for the future of Peace and Human Rights in the Region ………….30

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………32

3

Acknowledgements

To all my friends and colleagues, thank you for challenging me academically and

encouraging me to think critically of the world around me. I am thankful to the many faculty and

staff who were empathetic and willing to work with me as I embarked on this new and

overwhelming journey called college. I am also thankful to the Trinity community collectively,

who has helped mold me into the person I am today. My four years at Trinity would not have

been the same without the many people I met along the way.

I would like to give a special shout out to House of Peace (HOP), the Middle Eastern and

North African cultural organization at Trinity College. I am grateful to have had the opportunity

to lead the organization for two years and in that span gain an abundance of knowledge through

our amazing work. I would like to especially thank Professor Seth Markle, who has not only

guided me through this culminating project of my undergraduate experience, but who has served

as my mentor and confidant throughout the entire college journey. I am also eternally indebted

to the Posse Foundation, who saw something in me four years ago and awarded me with the gift

of a full-tuition leadership scholarship.

4

Abstract

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an ongoing war in the Middle East that began in

the mid-20th century. Over the last seventy years, the region has been characterized by

widespread violence and war as disputes over territory and religious freedom have heightened

tensions between the Israelis and Palestinians. Many countries, especially the United States, have

attempted to resolve the conflict and bring peace to the region. Since the conflict started, U.S.

presidents, both Republican and Democrat alike, have generally maintained a similar, pro-Israel

approach while attempting to be inclusive of the Palestinian community. However, the election

of Donald J. Trump has dramatically shifted U.S. policy towards the conflict that has ultimately

made the situation worse. President Trump’s aggressive support of Israel has stifled peace

negotiations and has made the prospect of a peaceful resolution virtually impossible.

Through an examination of secondary sources, as well as first-hand accounts from speeches,

news reports and official documents, I argue that the current uncompromising support of Israel

by the U.S. has led to the demise of any possibility for significant progress to be made. In fact,

Trump’s refusal to call out Israel and encourage democratic reforms has further isolated us from

the international community and has weakened our standing in the free world. If the United

States ever hopes to take part in a successful peace plan, we must play an objective role and

allow the main parties to discuss their grievances directly. Under President Trump, the region has

moved further away from reaching everlasting peace and stability.

5

Introduction

Trinity College offers students the opportunity to earn college credit through an

accelerated, two-week course during winter break. While some of those courses take place on

campus, others actually occur abroad, and as a student who had not studied abroad before, this

was an exciting opportunity for me. So this past fall, I decided to enroll in a course that would

take me to Israel and the Palestinian Territories. This region of the world has always intrigued me

and the prospect of going there was enticing. For the past two years, I have been the President of

the House of Peace (HOP), the Middle Eastern and North African cultural student organization.

Throughout my time with HOP, not only did I discover new knowledge about a culture different

from mine, but I became a passionate advocate for peace and human rights in the region we

represented. Though the course was considered part of the Religious Studies department

(therefore not focused on peace and human rights), I was still promised that we would inevitably

be engaging in conversations related to those topics, given its current state of affairs. Entitled “

Early Christian Women in Pilgrimage: In the Footsteps of Helena & Egeria”, our course

consisted of following in the journeys of these two prominent, early Chrisitians. In partnership

with the Albright Institute for Archeological Research (AIAR), we were poised to embark on an

intimate journey through history, visiting holy sites and reminiscing on their historical

significance. In the months prior to our departure, we met on a weekly basis to go over logistics

and expectations for our trip. We were to be explorative but cautious, and deeply cognizant of

our surroundings at all times. We also collectively read The Pilgrimage of Egeria by Anne

McGowan and Paul Bradshaw, to gain some understanding of who these women were and why

they are important. All the preparation, as you may imagine, left me eager to immerse myself

6

into this new environment. I would finally have a study abroad experience that was sure to be

transformative.

Then, suddenly, two days before our departure date, I received an email regarding the

trip: it was canceled. President Trump, on January 3rd, 2020, had quietly ordered a U.S. drone

strike that ultimately killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq. Out of an abundance of

caution and fears of potential regional insecurity and violence, the school had to make the swift

decision to no longer have the trip. I was overwhelmed with emotions after hearing the news.

“Why me?” “Why now?” I would ask myself, attempting to rationalize what I had believed to be

irrational. It took me a while to depersonalize his actions and put them into political and

historical context. Nevertheless, not only was this devastating news, but it made me angry. I

never had the actions of a president impact me in such a direct way. I had invested so much time,

energy and money into the trip and was looking forward to having this-once-in-a-lifetime

experience.

In light of this, I found it important to write about and document President Trump’s

approach to the Middle East region, particularly Israel and the Palestinian Territories. His

authoritarian nature has certainly changed the landscape of our country and its relations with the

world, and in order to best understand how his actions have truly impacted the state of human

rights globally, it is necessary to highlight his approach to one of the most contentious regions

today. Through a thematic analysis of primary source documents and news reports, as well as a

historical dive into U.S. relations within the region, I raise the question: How has the United

States, under the Trump administration, uniquely failed to uphold human rights rules and norms

in the Israeli/Palestinian region? While I acknowledge that past presidencies may have also been

7

unsuccessful in maintaining human rights within Israel/Palestine, the Trump era has brought with

it an extremely different approach that has ultimately made the prospects of peace virtually

impossible.

To further explore this question, I begin chapter one by providing political context into

the history of Israeli-Palestine and how we have gotten to where we are today. I then focus on

how President Obama handled the conflict in order to shed light on how previous presidents

went about addressing the conflict. Chapter two is dedicated to explaining major actions taken by

the Trump administration that highlight the ways in which they have deviated from a traditional

U.S. foreign policy approach to the Middle East. In doing so, I argue that Trump’s hardline, pro-

Israel approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has weakened U.S. leadership across

the globe. By failing to hold our allies accountable and by neglecting to use our leverage to

encourage a peaceful resolution, the U.S. under the Trump administration has failed to uphold

international human rights rules and values.

8

Literature Review

Donald J. Trump, before becoming president, had established himself as a notorious

political figure who was unafraid of speaking his mind. Because of this, it was quite clear how he

personally felt about a myriad of issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In an interview

with CNN in the spring of 2016, Trump stated that he was, “very pro Israel” and touted the many

awards he had received and the money he had donated to the country. He went on to say that he 1

would, “love to be neutral [between Israel and Palestinian]," but that he probably could not be,

because Palestine was inflicting too much terror. In his words, “They have to stop with the terror

because what they’re doing with the missiles and with the stabbings and with all of the other

things that they do, it’s horrible and it’s gotta end”. As a strong ally to Israel, Trump’s 2

comments did not stray too far from traditional U.S. policy, but still raised some eyebrows.

Clearly though, his criticism was towards Palestinians, who are viewed as the sole perpetrators of

the violence occurring in the region. Some were surprised by Trump’s ability to sound somewhat

inline with the American stance on the issue as he had difficulty devising his position on the

Middle East during the campaign. Author Mark Lynch describes the combination of Trump’s

policy proposals and rhetoric towards the Middle East as a type of belligerent minimalism. 3

Similarly, who could forget the infamous day in which candidate Trump called for banning

Mccaskill, Nolan D., and Nick Gass. “Trump Backs Away from 'Neutral' Stance on Israel.” 1

POLITICO, 21 Mar. 2016.

Ibid.2

Marc Lynch (2016) Belligerent Minimalism: The Trump Administration and the Middle East, 3

The Washington Quarterly, 39:4, 127-144, DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2016.1263920

9

Muslims from entering into the U.S. At one of his rallies, he announced his position that there

should be "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our

country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on". While not directly 4

implicating any particular state at the time, Islam is the predominant religion in Palestine. In fact,

there are nearly 85% of people practicing it in Palestine as a whole, and 99% practicing it in the

Gaza Strip. His unsettling statement drew criticism from political parties and organizations 5

around the world, as fears of such a policy being implemented began to grow. Trump, in this

instance utilized a strain of anti-islamic rhetoric that framed Islam as an evil, dark force. His

push for extreme measures to be taken, such as a muslim ban, prove scholars point that fear-

mongering was a focal tactic used to rally people against the religion itself, rather than those who

use religion as a means of terror. 6

Unfortunately, after Trump was sworn in as president, much of what he had promised as a

candidate in regard to Israel-Palestine became a reality. He dropped the Obama administration’s

approach that called for democratic reforms and avoided overtly favoring one side over the

other. Instead, Trump focused on fostering an even closer relationship with Prime Minister 7

Benjamin Netanyahu and showed no interest in bolstering democratic norms. His appointment of

staunch supporters of Israel, such as the son of a prominent Long Island rabbi David Friedman to

Johnson, Jenna. “Trump Calls for 'Total and Complete Shutdown of Muslims Entering the 4

United States'.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Dec. 2015.

Palestine Population. (2020-02-17). Retrieved 2020-04-17.5

Shane, Scott, Matthew Rosenberg, and Eric Lipton. “Trump Pushes Dark View of Islam to 6

Center of U.S. Policy-Making.” The New York Times, February 2, 2017. https://nyti.ms/2jXsjhb.

Thompson, J. (n.d.). Trump’s Middle East Policy. 7

10

ambassador of Israel, and son of Jewish refugees Jason Greenblatt as advisor on Israel, sent a

distinct tone of support to Israel. In a 2017 document that lays out the Trump administration's 8

national security strategy, it becomes clear as to why such a strong bromance was developing

among Trump and Netanyahu. The document states that, “Israel is not the cause of the region’s

problems” and that the only reason peace has not come to the region is because of threats from

“jihadist terrorists organizations”. Here, Trump is describing organizations such as Hamas, a 9

Palestinian militant group that has been deemed a terrorists organizations from forces like the

U.S. and the European Union. In explicit terms, the U.S. was now relinquishing any

responsibility from Israel and placing it all on Palestine. Declarations such as these only

emboldened Israel, who could now plead blameless for any current instability. Scholars 10

question whether Trump's actions were influenced by his actual concern for the region or if they

were for his personal benefit. His flagrance in regards to Israeli-Palestinian policy showed that

reaching an actual peace deal was subordinate to attaining domestic political goals. 11

Trump’s strategy towards the Middle East has also been described as inimitable and as

occurring in a piecemeal fashion because of his inconsistencies and obscurity. In many ways, it

seemed as though his policy was to just do the exact opposite of what his predecessor, President

Nusem, R. (09 May 2018). A Year of Readjustment: The Trump Administration’s New Policy 8

on Israel and Iran.

The White House (2017, December). National Security Strategy of the United States of 9

America.

Ibid. 10

Eriksson, Bo Jonas Jacob (2018) Master of none: Trump, Jerusalem, and the prospects of 11

Israeli-Palestinian peace. Middle East Policy. pp. 51-63. ISSN 1475-4967

11

Obama, had done in the years before. This change could best be seen in Trump’s announcement 12

in 2017 to denote Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S. embassy to that city. In his

speech, he called this decision, “a necessary condition for achieving peace," an ironic statement

given the violence that ensued that same day as a response. The Jerusalem Embassy Act, 13

adopted in 1995, gave this authority to any sitting president who wished to move the U.S.

embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, over the last 20 years, presidents had avoided

taking this action as it was believed to stifle any prospect of achieving peace in the Middle

East. Nonetheless, Trump’s decision to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel further 14

demonstrated his shameless preference of an Israeli State. Palestinian President Mahmoud

Abbas, in reaction, dubbed Trump’s decision as “the slap of the century” and warned that the U.S

could no longer be apart of peace negotiations. 15

Presidents before Trump have attempted to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Other

countries and NGOs have also attempted to facilitate a peaceful solution to no avail. Historically,

The U.S. has expressed a commitment to a two-state solution plan, one that provides both people

their own state. As one of Israel’s greatest allies, presidents have tried to use their relationship 16

as leverage to urge a resolution. U.S intervention in the Middle east, which has often come in the

Black, Ian. “Donald Trump and the Middle East.” Political Insight 9, no. 1 (March 2018): 22–12

25.

Al Jazeera. “Trump Transcript in Full: Jerusalem Is Israel's Capital.” Jerusalem News | Al 13

Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 8 Dec. 2017.

Waxman, Olivia B. “The Law Behind Donald Trump's Jerusalem Embassy Move.” Time, 14

Time, 5 Dec. 2017.

Black, Ian. “Donald Trump and the Middle East,” pgs 22–25. 15

Quandt, William B. Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 16

1967. Brookings Institution Press, 2005.

12

form of military intervention, has always been to create and preserve a way of life similar to that

of America. As the only declared democracy in the region, the U.S. has long viewed Israel as 17

vital to the spread and success of democratic norms. Even so, the region in its entirety continues

to face challenges that make this idealization virtually impossible.

The various literature on Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions about Israel-Palestine as

well as past presidents' attempts at a peaceful solution is key to point out when attempting to

understand America’s Middle East strategy today. Overall, the literature demonstrates President

Trump’s extreme approach to the conflict and helps explain how he has failed to uphold human

rights norms and policies within the region.

Bacevich, Andrew J. America's War for the Greater Middle East: a Military History. Random 17

House, 2017.

13

Chapter 1: A History of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Today referred to as Israel and the Palestine territories, this part of the world was

originally just called Palestine, named after 12th century Greeks who lived near modern Tel Aviv

and Gaza. The idea of Israel as a state began in the 20th century, when tensions between Arabs 18

and Jews were rising. Before this time, Christians, Jews and Muslims lived generally peacefully

in close quarters. The heart of this land is home to Jerusalem, the city that is considered holy to

the three major Abrahamic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In each of their

respective holy doctrines, Jerusalem is a significant, holy site and center of pilgrimage. Though

minor conflicts did occur amongst these groups in the early 20th century and even beforehand,

they were nothing compared to World War II and its implications for the region.

From an Israeli perspective, the most significant event of World War II was the Holocaust.

During the early 1930s in Germany, the Nazi Party, who were unabashedly anti-Semitic,

began to increase their power in parliament and Adolf Hitler, who would soon become the

totalitarian leader of Germany, was appointed German Chancellor. Throughout this time, Jews

were already experiencing fierce discrimination and persecution in Germany. The Nuremberg

Laws of 1935, specifically the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour and

the Reich Citizenship Law, were blatant racist policies that denied Jewish people in Germany

citizenship or livelihoods. Aware of what was soon to come, Jewish people had made several 19

attempts to migrate to other countries, but were denied entry by many. The U.S. only allowed

Rashid Ismail, and Peter Marshall Fraser. “Palestine.” Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, 18

Inc., 24 Feb. 2020, www.britannica.com/place/Palestine.

National Archives, The Nuremberg Laws. (n.d.). 19

14

about 27,000 Jews in 1938 due to existing quota policies, while others did not allow any in. It

increasingly became difficult for the Jewish people to find a sanctuary where they would be safe

and free from a second-class status. In the following years, the German invasion of Poland would

mark the beginning of World War II and the Holocaust. Between 1941 and 1945, over 6 million

Jews were murdered at Hitler’s direction in what was known as the Final Solution to the Jewish

Question. These horrific acts ended only after Hitler committed suicide and Germany declared 20

defeat.

The quest for a Jewish State had been in the works decades prior to this tragedy, though

the Holocaust surely had a decisive influence on its perceived necessity. Jewish people, now

more than ever, felt the urgency of an Israeli State. This nationalist movement, also known as

Zionism, presented the need for the establishment of a Jewish homeland as a form of repatriation

for the prosecution of the Jewish people. Moreover, the new nation would be developed on The 21

Promise Land, land that was promised to the progenitor Abraham by God, according to the

Torah. Within the holy text, it states in Hebrew, “Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I

have given you the land to possess”. This verse is the source for the biblical command to settle 22

and inhabit the Land of Israel. So not only did the Jewish people feel the need for an Israeli state

because of repression, but based on biblical reasoning as well. At this time, Palestinians, who

were mostly Arab, occupied this land. During World War II, there was an influx of Jewish people

who had illegally settled in Palestine, but nonetheless only accounted for a small segment of the

Wistrich, Robert S. “Israel and the Holocaust Trauma.” Jewish History, vol. 11, no. 2, 1997, 20

pp. 13–20.

Ibid. 21

The Torah, numbers 33:53. 22

15

population. A plan for the creation of an Jewish State actually came from Great Britain, who after

seizing the Ottoman Empire in World War I, issued the Balfour Declaration that stated their

intent to develop a Jewish State in Palestine. Strong Arab opposition to this plan delayed it's 23

implementation up until the end of World War II. With the British mandate over Palestine about

to expire, a decision on what to do with the land had to be made. Unable to develop a plan that

would appease both the Jewish and Arab people, the British handed over the mandate to the

United Nations (UN), who ultimately decided to partition the land and affirm the creation of the

State of Israel in 1948. 24

The declaration of an Israeli State led to what is known today as the Arab-Israeli War of

1948. Surrounding Arab forces from Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Syria entered the territory and

attacked the Israeli army in an attempt to prevent them from settling in Palestine. The Palestinian

Arabs refused to give up their land and believed the UN process to be favorable to only the

Jewish people. After nearly a year of combat and thousands of lives lost, separate armistice

agreements between Israel and each of the Arab states eventually ended the war. The Jewish 25

people came out victorious, gaining the land granted to them by the UN as well as additional

land won through the conflict. They now occupied more land than the Palestinian Arabs who

were already living there. To this day, both the Jewish and Arab people perceive the outcome of

Wistrich, “Israel and the Holocaust Trauma”, pp. 13-20. 23

Ibid. 24

Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute. The Arab-Israeli War of 1948. (n.d.). 25

Retrieved April 20, 2020, from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

16

the war in different ways. While it is celebrated by Jews each year as the Israeli War of

Independence, it is mourned by Palestinians as the beginning of Nakba. 26

Displaced Palestinians now had to manage a new way of life under Israeli rule while

others were expelled from their homes entirely. Over the next several decades, the Israeli and

Arab communities would continue to engage in conflict. The Six-Day War of 1967 was an

attempt by Arab forces to regain control of land as relations between Israel and the Arab states

had not been fully normalized. Once again, Israeli forces came out victorious, successfully 27

defeating the Arab military and gaining control of even more land in historic Palestine. As Israeli

nationalism and pride were gaining strength, so were Arab resentment and hostility. Palestinians

who now lived under Israeli rule were dealing with retaliatory repression and discrimination.

Rising unemployment and poor living conditions made life for Palestinians in Israel-occupied

territory difficult. Tired of their treatment under Israeli rule, in 1987 the first Intifada broke out. 28

It was characterized by mass protests and often violent riots, and it was a sign that relations

between the two groups were still contentious. The grassroots uprising of the Palestinians

eventually developed into the Unified National Command of the Uprising, which played a

crucial role in organizing the Palestinian people during this time. At the same time came the rise

of Hamas (the arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement), a militant organization

U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/26

arab-israeli-war.

Nami Nasrallah, 'The First and Second Palestinian intifadas,' in David Newman, Joel Peters 27

(eds.) Routledge Handbook on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Routledge, 2013, pp. 56–68.

Ibid. 28

17

with the goal of liberating Palestine from the Israeli people. It has been designated as a terrorist 29

organization by the U.S. and European forces because of their commitment to the destruction of

Israel through armed conflict. While not representative of the Palestinian people as a whole, the

creation of Hamas speaks to the deep frustration and bitterness many Palestinians still held as a

result of being overtaken. A second Intifada would eventually occur again in the year 2000 as a

result of the failed Oslo peace process. The Israeli army once again faced off against unarmed 30

civilians enraged by the occupation of their land and their second-class treatment. Many on both

sides saw this second breakout as the official abandonment of a peaceful resolution. With every

attempt by the Palestinians to seek retribution, Israeli forces increased security and hostility of

those living in their declared state.

As a result of the second Intifada and what seemed to be relentless rioting on the part of

Palestinians, in 2003 Israel developed a 25-feet wall separating the West Bank and Israeli-

occupied territory. Known as the West Bank Barrier, Israel defended its buildout as a necessary

step to ensuring Palestinians “terrorists” do not retaliate against their civilians. However, 31

Palestinians consider it a modern day example of Apartheid. This view is shared by the UN

International Court of Justice, who issued an opinion calling the barrier a violation of

international law. The UN General Assembly concurred with the opinion and agreed that the 32

Ibid, pg 57. 29

Ibid.30

Cohen, Shaul E. “Israel's West Bank Barrier: An Impediment to Peace?” Geographical Review, 31

vol. 96, no. 4, 2006, pp. 682–695., www.jstor.org/stable/30034143. Accessed 13 2020.

Ibid.32

18

wall should be removed in a 144-4 vote, 12 abstentions. Regardless, Israel has made minimal 33

changes to the wall, only rerouting it under the guise of minimizing it's negative effects on the

Palestinians. The wall lives on to this day and has presented to be an impediment to a peace

agreement.

The current state of Israel and the Palestinian territories is unsustainable and is a disaster

waiting to happen. U.S. intervention has yet to successfully bring about change in the region, but

as a country that views itself as an exceptional leader of the free world, it's not a matter of if we

should intervene, but how. Our long-standing relationship with Israel also prompts us to support

our democratic ally while also holding them accountable for their actions. But with Palestinians

living in occupied territory and both Israeli and Palestinian people being killed everyday, we can

not let the mirage of an ideal democratic nation in the Middle East allow us to ignore the realities

on the ground. The intense animosity between both people requires steady U.S. leadership that,

at minimal, attempts to uphold human rights norms and values. In order to demonstrate how

President Trump has uniquely failed at this task, it's necessary that we compare his approach to

that of his predecessors.

“General Assembly adopts text requesting international court of justice to issue advisory 33

opinion on the West Bank Separation Wall | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” United Nations, United Nations.

19

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict under Obama

President Barack Obama's Middle East plan followed a similar playbook taken by

presidents before him. He first laid out his Middle East aspirations in an address given in Cairo,

Egypt in 2009. Entitled A New Beginning, Obama addressed his support of a two-state solution

in which both Israeli’s and Palestinians have their own statehood. While support for a two-state 34

solution followed longstanding U.S. policy, the tone and rhetoric of his speech as a whole was

widely regarded as the most sympathetic a U.S. president had been towards Palestinians. Obama

recognized the plight of the Palestinian people, and made the commitment that, “America

[would] not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a

state of their own.” Obama had also called for a cessation of the Israeli settlements, a pushback 35

on Israel’s claim that its presence is necessary to prevent civilian deaths. This sentiment was

made clear when in that same speech, he said that it's construction, “Violates previous

agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." 36

Here, Obama recognized that not only was the current situation stifling the peace process, but he

also declared it as a violation of international consensus. The international community regards

Israeli settlements as illegal and comparable to a war crime as it is in violation of the Fourth

Geneva Convention (GCIV). Article 49 of the GCIV specifically states that, “The Occupying

“Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09.” National Archives and Records 34

Administration. National Archives and Records Administration.

Ibid.35

Ibid.36

20

Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it

occupies.” Yet, this describes the current situation in the region. In this sense, President Obama 37

upheld human rights by calling out an ally’s wrongdoing. The importance of U.S. pressure was

personified when, a few months later, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced for the first time his

endorsement of Palestinian statehood alongside Israel. He also conceded to postponing further

development of the settlements, an urgent matter for Palestinians living in the region. President 38

Trump on the other hand, has not only failed to denounce the Israeli wall, but has embraced it,

often praising its effectiveness in an attempt to promote his own idea of a border wall between

Mexico and the U.S. During the 2018 U.S. government shut down over border security, Trump

invoked Israel’s wall in a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck

Schumer. He said, “If you really want to find out how effective a wall is, just ask Israel...[It’s]

99.9 percent effective and our wall will be every bit as good as that, if not better.” Trump’s 39

public support for Israel’s wall is not only oppositional to the previous administration's position ,

but it completely disregards what the international community has already agreed upon.

In 2011, though, Obama seemed to backtrack a bit with a vote made at the United

Nations Security Council. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice decided to veto a resolution

condemning Israeli settlement activity. Rice explained that her objection to the resolution was

The Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, International Committee of the Red Cross, 37

Geneva, pp.153-221.

Kershner, Isabel. “Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats.” The New York Times, 38

The New York Times, 14 June 2009.

Ibid.39

21

not because of its substance, but because of its potential to hinder peace negotiations. Though 40

she tried hard to justify her reasoning for this decision, it proved that the administration’s mere

rhetoric would not be supported through action. It also highlighted how strong our allyship is

with Israel and how it can often make the U.S. reluctant to critique them, even when we know

they are wrong. It surely was a missed opportunity to denounce Israel’s settlement walls through

an international means.

During his second term, Obama continued his efforts to maintain close negotiations

between the two parties. In 2013, he appointed new Secretary of State John Kerry to carry on

with the peace process. Instead of meeting with their leaders, this time talks were had between

their respective top negotiators. Palestinians were only willing to come back to the table after 41

Israeli’s agreed to release 104 prisoners who were seen as freedom fighters to the Palestinian

cause. This was viewed as a substantial concession and a win for the U.S as it demonstrated a 42

willingness to compromise. Unfortunately, before real progress could be made, Palestinians quit

discussions due to continued settlement building by Israel. Secretary Kerry tried relentlessly to

salvage peace talks, but it quickly became clear that he would be unable to do so. Throughout

2014, Israel continued to announce the development of new settlements throughout the land, and

Palestinians viewed this as a sign that Israel was no longer willing to negotiate. There also still

were debates on where to draw border lines and what exactly would be required to achieve state

Pressman, J. (2016, July 14). Obama and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Retrieved April 20, 40

2020, from https://www.e-ir.info/2016/07/14/obama-and-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

Booth, William (29 July 2013). "Peace talks set to begin after Israel agrees to free 104 41

Palestinian prisoners". The Washington Post.

Ibid. 42

22

recognition. In a last stitch effort at achieving peace, Secretary of State John Kerry made a

speech at the Saban Forum warning that ,”unless significant efforts are made to change the

dynamic—and I mean significant—it will only bring more violence, more heartbreak, and more

despair.” 43

With no progress in sight, It was at this point that President Obama realized he would not

be able to solve the ongoing Middle East conflict. In lieu of this reality, Obama made a bold

move at the United Nations Security Council. In his last act as president, he had US Ambassador

to the UN Samantha Powers to abstain on the controversial resolution that again demanded an

end to Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Specifically, it stated that Israel “immediately 44

and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East

Jerusalem,” and declares that the establishment of settlements by Israel has “no legal validity and

constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” For decades, the U.S. had reliably voted 45

to veto the resolution as it was always intended to strongly rebuke the Israel government, our

ally. But for the first time ever, rather than veto and show support to them, the U.S. moved out

of the way and allowed for the censure of Israel by the international community. It is important

to note that in explaining her vote, Powers tried to walk back the implications of her vote and

said that it “does not in any way diminish our steadfast and unparalleled commitment to the

Ya’alon, Moshe, Yair Lapid, John Kerry, Martin S. Indyk, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. 43

“Saban Forum 2015-Israel and the United States: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” Brookings. Brookings, August 12, 2016.

Stanglin, Doug. “U.S. Abstains on U.N. Vote Condemning Israeli Settlements.” USA Today. 44

Gannett Satellite Information Network, December 24, 2016. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/23/un-set-vote-israeli-settlement-despite-trump-intervention/95796716/.

Ibid.45

23

security of Israel" and acknowledged that Israel “faces very serious threats in a very tough

neighborhood." 46

Ibid. 46

24

Chapter 2: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict under Trump

As touched upon in the beginning, the election of Donald Trump brought with it a drastic

change in U.S policy towards the Middle East. The U.S. always shared a friendly relationship

with Israel, but Donald Trump will be remembered for his uniquely close friendship with Israel

and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Before becoming president, Trump had regularly

boasted about the many awards he had received from the country. But during the 2016 campaign

he struggled to maintain the pro-Israel tone he has become known for. For example, at a town

hall event in February of 2016, Trump stated that he planned on being “sort of a neutral guy” on

peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. His impartiality in this instance concerned 47

some Jewish leaders who had expected a stronger response of support from Trump. He continued

these slip ups when he said in an interview with the Associated Press that in regard to peace in

the Middle East, “a lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the

deal – whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.” His attempt to place complete 48

responsibility on Israel further isolated him from his Republican counterparts who were

staunchly pro-Israel. But as the campaign winded down, and Trump became the presumptive

republican nominee, he began to strike a different tone. At the annual American Israel Public

Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meeting in 2016, Trump conceded to making some brash comments

in a prepared speech by his son-in law Jared Kushner. He called President Obama “the worst

thing to ever happen to Israel” and promised that the U.S. would “move the American embassy

Schaefer, Brian. “Where Does Donald Trump Stand on Israel?” haaretz.com, April 10, 2018. 47

Ibid. 48

25

to the eternal capital of the Jewish people.” After this moment, Trump would go on to develop 49

an unnatural support for Israel that will go down in American history as the most supportive a

U.S. president has been towards the Jewish State.

This change could be seen almost immediately after his inauguration, with Trump’s

announcement in 2017 to denote Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S. embassy to that

city. In his speech, he called this decision, “a necessary condition for achieving peace”, an ironic

statement given the violence that ensued that same day in response. The Jerusalem Embassy 50

Act, adopted in 1995, gave this authority to any sitting president who wished to move the U.S.

embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, over the last 20 years, presidents had avoided 51

taking this action as it was believed to stifle any prospect of achieving peace in the Middle

East. Nonetheless, Trump’s decision to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel further 52

demonstrated his shameless preference of an Israeli State. He tried to tout this move as simply

recognizing the obvious, but clearly there were further implications of this announcement.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in reaction, dubbed Trump’s decision as “the slap of the

century” and warned that the U.S could no longer be apart of peace negotiations. Though he 53

was keeping a campaign promise, this decision was not contributing to lasting peace and

stability. In fact, it was rejected by a majority of world leaders. The United Nations Security

Begley, Sarah. “Read Donald Trump's Full Speech to AIPAC.” Time. Time, March 22, 2016. 49

Al Jazeera. “Trump Transcript in Full: Jerusalem Is Israel's Capital.” 50

Ibid.51

Waxman.“The Law Behind Donald Trump's Jerusalem Embassy Move.”52

Black. “Donald Trump and the Middle East,” pg. 22–25.53

26

Council held an emergency meeting the following day and 14 out of 15 members condemned

Trump's decision. 54

The following year, the administration continued to put its biases into policy when they

began to dismantle support for Palestine monetarily. The U.S. State Department abruptly decided

to end all funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

(UNRWA), the single largest organization dedicated to supporting Palestinian refugees. 55

Before this, the U.S. had been the main contributor to the organization. In conjunction with this

cut in funding, the U.S. also reprogramed hundreds of millions of dollars in economic aid

originally set for the West Bank and Gaza to other locations, yielding an economic blow to

Palestinians already in distress. This money was going to U.S. funded projects like schools and 56

hospitals, and other programs aimed at working towards peace in areas of conflict. Projects that

were set to begin had to now be suspended as there was no longer sufficient money to fund them.

The Trump administration tried to argue that these decisions were made in an attempt to bring

Palestine back to the negotiating table, but punishing the Palestinians was ineffective. These cuts

went against longstanding U.S. assistance to Palestinians, who since 1994 has received over 5

billion dollars in U.S. aid. It has been a key part of U.S. policy to encourage an Israeli-57

Palestinian peace process and improve life in the West Bank and Gaza. 58

Fassihi, Farnaz (December 9, 2017). "Fourteen of 15 Security Council Members Denounce 54

U.S. Stance on Jerusalem". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved December 9, 2017.

“Congressional Research Service.” Product Details RS22967.https://crsreports.congress.gov/55

product/details?prodcode=RS22967.

Ibid. 56

Ibid.57

Ibid.58

27

In 2019, Trump broke with international law again when he signed a proclamation recognizing

Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights have been a contested area in the

region for over half a century as it is long recognized as part of Syria. Since the Six-Day War of

1967, the international community has viewed the land as Syrian territory occupied by Israel in

war. While Israel had claimed sovereignty over the land, no other country had shared this view: 59

until now. This decision violated the United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 of 1981,

which was signed unanimously, and called the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights “null and

void and without international legal effect.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres later that 60

day affirmed, “ that the status of Golan has not changed," and that the decision made by the U.S

goes against long standing principles of territorial integrity. Not only did the U.S. break with 61

the international community, but the U.S. made unnecessary concessions to Israel without

leveraging its power to promote stability in the region. It was also seen as a move just to help

Prime Minister Netanyahu in his campaign for reelection back in Israel. 62

Later that year, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo released a statement saying that the U.S.

disagreed with a State Department opinion of 1981 that rendered Israeli settlements as against

international law. This declaration represented a drastic U.S. reversal on long standing legal 63

Sune Engel Rasmussen, “Trump’s Golan Heights Endorsement Draws Ire From Friends and 59

Foes,” Wall Street Journal, (March 22, 2019);

“Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel.” The White 60

House. The United States Government.

Nichols, Michelle. “U.N. Chief Clear That Golan Status Has Not Changed: Spokesman.” 61

Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 25 Mar. 2019,

Ibid.62

“Secretary Michael R. Pompeo Remarks to the Press.” U.S. Department of State. U.S. 63

Department of State, November 18, 2019.

28

opinion that labeled these settlements as otherwise. To justify his reversal, he cited former

President Ronald Reagan, who assessed that the settlements were not "inherently illegal," but

merely “unnecessarily provocative.” Again, almost deliberately, the Trump administration went 64

out of its way to accommodate Israel’s illegal behaviors. The announcement sent a clear message

to Israeli settlers and its government: continue settlement building. Netanyahu praised this

statement, calling it proof “that the Jewish people are not foreign colonialists”, a belief that

Palestinians hold deeply to be true. The announcement also stands to be a renunciation of the 65

Fourth Geneva Convention, which outlaws transfers of population by an occupying power. 66

At the start of this year, Trump released his long awaited Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan. Led by

son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner, this plan outlined the administration’s hopes for the

Middle East region. Many were skeptical and questioned the relevance of Kushner’s part in these

efforts due to his lack of expertise on the issue; his presence was clearly a result of nepotism.

Regardless, the Trump-Kushner plan precisely reflected the administration’s stance on the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict throughout his first term: to favor Israel while maintaining a overtly

critical view of Palestine. The overall plan was divided into two parts, one economic and the

other political, and together they made up the administration's attempt at reconciling the conflict.

On January 28th 2020, Trump officially unveiled the political peace plan with Netanyahu

standing beside him. Palestinians leaders were not invited to the event. Months prior, Trump had

Ibid. 64

Gonzales, Richard. “State Department Loosens U.S. Policy On Israeli Settlements In West 65

Bank.” State Department Loosens U.S. Policy On Israeli Settlements In West Bank | WBUR News. WBUR, November 18, 2019.

Ibid. 66

29

released the economic portion of his plan in a speech given in Bahrain. This event was boycotted

by many Palestinian leaders and businessmen who viewed this effort as an attempt to buy away

Palestinian territory. Officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) officials also rejected the idea 67

of economic incentives influencing their positions on core political demands. The political plan

has proven to be even worse, as it made drastic changes to previous U.S. peace plans. For one, it

gave Israel almost full autonomy over Jerusalem. As explained early on, Jerusalem has long been

a shared city with holy and historical significance to many people. To submit the entire area to

the Jewish people demonstrates carelessness and a lack of legitimate efforts by the U.S. to reach

peace. The plan also redraws the border lines that were released in 1967 and gives significantly

more land to Israel. Since recognition of Israel as a state in 1948, Palestinians have been losing 68

more and more of their land over the decades. To think that Palestinians would accept even less

than what they already have is shameful and should not have even been on the table. The Trump

administration's actions thus far have only bolstered Israel at the expense of real and legitimate

progress towards peace. At every turn, Trump has seemingly held the most pro-Israel position

possible, divesting from Palestinian related causes while significantly increasing support to

Israel. Whether or not Trump was acting upon deeply held convictions or there were other

motivations, his actions surely were not taken with the intent of bringing about positive change.

Al Jazeera. “Palestinians Reject Economic Part of US Peace Plan.” Israel News | Al Jazeera. Al 67

Jazeera, June 23, 2019.

Ibid. 68

30

Conclusion: Implications for the future of Peace and Human Rights

Though it was my personal experience that served as the impetus for this paper, the

reality of the experiences of those on the ground are worthy of sharing on their own merit. Both

the Israel and Palestinian people have been living in fear for many decades, and various countries

have tried to assist in their peace process. The U.S. has historically played a significant role in

each attempt at a deal, but has failed to lead negotiations down a long lasting, successful path.

The policies and rhetoric of President Trump have further irritated an already fragile conflict,

making the prospect of a viable plan nonexistent. As President Trump’s first term comes to a

close, we can already see how his presidency will have long lasting implications for the world.

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular, the U.S. has lost the credibility and

leadership needed to effectively bring about positive change to the region. His totalitarian

tendencies, along with his unyielding support for Israel regardless of their actions, has

disqualified the U.S from continuing to play a role in peace negotiations. This reality is

unfortunate because for so long we have championed human rights and tried to set an example

for the world. American exceptionalism made us the envy of the world. But now that we have

relinquished this role, what is to come of peace and human rights within the Israeli-Palestinian

region?

The future looks bleak, but it is important to maintain a hopeful outlook. If Donald

Trump goes on to win the 2020 election and secure a second term, there are fears that the

prospect of a Palestinian State will never come to fruition. The U.S. has cozied up to Israel to the

point where Palestinians will no longer even come to the negotiating table. Who is to blame

them? From recognizing Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel, to no longer recognizing

31

Israeli settlements as illegal, the plight of the Palestinian people has been completely ignored. As

long as President Trump remains in office, there will be no viable solution to the conflict anytime

soon.

Joe Biden, the presumptive democratic nominee for president and former vice president

of the U.S. under Obama, should bring some hope to the Palestinian cause. According to his

campaign, if he becomes president, Biden plans to “reverse the Trump Administration’s

destructive cutoff of diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority and cancelation of assistance

programs that support Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation, economic development, and

humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza.” Retracting many of 69

the Trump era policies regarding the conflict will be an important first step, but it will not be

enough. If the U.S. wants to continue to be a part of the peace process, we must stop picking

sides and start prioritizing the lives and livelihoods of the people. We must be unafraid to call out

enemies and allies alike, and always uphold human rights wherever they are violated. At the end

of the day, peace will not be determined by the will of America. It will be based on the

willingness and ability of the Israeli and Palestinian to come together and develop a resolution. It

is my hope, that in the near future, we will be see a two-state solution that creates an Israeli State,

a Palestinian State, and a lifelong commitment to building and sustaining peace, stability and

human rights.

“Joe Biden and the Jewish Community: A Record and a Plan of Friendship, Support and 69

Action .” Joe Biden for President.

32

Bibliography

Bacevich, Andrew J. America's War for the Greater Middle East: a Military History. Random

House, 2017.

Black, Ian. “Donald Trump and the Middle East.” Political Insight 9, no. 1 (March 2018): 22–25.

doi:10.1177/2041905818764703.

Booth, William (29 July 2013). "Peace talks set to begin after Israel agrees to free 104

Palestinian prisoners". The Washington Post.

Cohen, Shaul E. “Israel's West Bank Barrier: An Impediment to Peace?” Geographical Review,

vol. 96, no. 4, 2006, pp. 682–695., www.jstor.org/stable/30034143. Accessed 13 2020.

Elgindy. “Obama's Record on Israeli-Palestinian Peace.” Foreign Affairs, August 13, 2019.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2016-10-05/obamas-record-israeli-palestinian-

peace.

Johnson, Jenna. “Trump Calls for 'Total and Complete Shutdown of Muslims Entering the United

States'.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Dec. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/

post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-

entering-the-united-states/?noredirect=on.

Kershner, Isabel. “Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats.” The New York Times, The

New York Times, 14 June 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/world/middleeast/

15mideast.html.

Mccaskill, Nolan D., and Nick Gass. “Trump Backs Away from 'Neutral' Stance on Israel.”

POLITICO, 21 Mar. 2016, www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/

2016/03/donald-trump-israel-aipac-palestinians-221060.

33

Nami Nasrallah, 'The First and Second Palestinian intifadas,' in David Newman, Joel Peters

(eds.) Routledge Handbook on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Routledge, 2013, pp. 56–68, p.

56.

National Archives, The Nuremberg Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2020, from https://

www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2010/winter/nuremberg.html

Nichols, Michelle. “U.N. Chief Clear That Golan Status Has Not Changed: Spokesman.”

Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 25 Mar. 2019, www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-israel-un/u-n-chief-

clear-that-golan-status-has-not-changed-spokesman-idUSKCN1R623E.

Nusem, R. (09 May 2018). A Year of Readjustment: The Trump Administration’s New ...

Retrieved April 20, 2020, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/

10.1080/23739770.2018.1466230

Palestine Population. (2020-02-17). Retrieved 2020-04-17, from http://

worldpopulationreview.com/countries/palestine/

“Obama Pushes Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, September

15, 2014. https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/web-video/obama-pushes-israeli-

palestinian-peace-talks.

Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute. The Arab-Israeli War of 1948. (n.d.). Retrieved

April 20, 2020, from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

34

Pressman, J. (2016, July 14). Obama and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Retrieved April 20,

2020, from https://www.e-ir.info/2016/07/14/obama-and-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

Quandt, William B. Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since

1967. Brookings Institution Press, 2005.

Waxman, Olivia B. “The Law Behind Donald Trump's Jerusalem Embassy Move.” Time, Time, 5

Dec. 2017, time.com/5049019/jerusalem-embassy-history/.

The White House (2017, December). National Security Strategy of the United States of America.

Retrieved from https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/NatSecStrat.pdf

Thompson, J. (n.d.). Trump’s Middle East Policy. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from https://

css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/

CSSAnalyse233-EN.pdf

Wistrich, Robert S. “Israel and the Holocaust Trauma.” Jewish History, vol. 11, no. 2, 1997, pp.

13–20. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20101298. Accessed 11 Apr. 2020

Ya’alon, Moshe, Yair Lapid, John Kerry, Martin S. Indyk, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Saban

Forum 2015-Israel and the United States: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” Brookings.

Brookings, August 12, 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/events/saban-forum-2015-israel-and-

the-united-states-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow/.

Zanotti, Jim. “Israel: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief.” Congressional Research Service

Reports on the Middle East and the Arab World, fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/.

35